A Christian forum dedicated to the discussion of how a nation based entirely off of biblical principles ought to be like. We believe that Righteousness Exalteth a Nation, and that God's righteous hand is necessary for the blessing of any nation.

Part of this post depends on the conclusion of the definition of a citizen. This is a hard topic to determine from a biblical position. Though I spent a year of debate on illegal immigration, my conclusions on how to fix America's immigration problem are going to be different then my conclusions on biblical immigration. I'll have to think about this more. I guess the point of this post is to get people to visit this post and the citizen post again so we can start discussing them. Please post your beliefs about immigration below. Remember: start with the Bible and use the Bible to determine what a government should do about immigration. Don't try to find some Scripture verse to defend your own preconceived ideas. Also, don't conclude something that can't be defended from Scripture.

This is kind of a post off of the discussion on defining a citizen. I don't want to discourage immigration at all, I just want to set up a system which tries to protect the privileges of current citizens as well as ensure that they will be safer from potential crime or disease. Hence my two background check restriction (criminal and health.)

If a person immigrates to a nation without going through the proper immigration process set up by that nation it does one of many things.

1. Shows that they do not "Submit [themselves] to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;" 1 Peter 2:12

2. It's a slap in the face to those foreigners who want to obey the laws of that nation and thus go through the process of immigration/citizenship.

3. It demonstrates a willingness to break the law. Maybe they have something to hide, or maybe they just don't respect the law. Either case, it is a crime because it is threatening citizens life, liberty, or property. After all, if they break this law intentionally, they are most likely going to break another law. Or if they have something to hide (criminal background or dangerous disease) they are obviously a threat.

Sir Emeth Mimetes wrote:

What is confusing you about my conclusion is that you are assuming that 'illegal immigration' is bad, and that it is the cause of America's problems. That is, at least, what you are saying. No amount of immigration hurt America in and of itself:

Severely disagree. Even the fact that the word 'illegal' is in the name should tell you that it is bad. No amount of lawful immigration has hurt America, but any amount of illegal immigration has undoubtedly done damage. I have debate evidence which proves over and over the statistics of criminals who are among illegal immigrants. (This includes 4 of the 19 terrorists involved in the September 11 attacks were in America illegally.) Costs for illegal immigration paid by US taxpayers have skyrocketed. This is just a brief overview, but I hope it shows the need for the two aforementioned screening checks and the problem with illegal immigration.

Just a quick word on semantic clarification: immigration is only illegal if it is done in a way not prescribed by the government. This is rather obvious, but it bears mentioning. This is because it has important effects on immigration law. The question is not "Is illegal immigration bad" (because it is: it is illegal), but "what kinds of immigration, if any, should be illegal?" In other words, what ways of immigration are crimes in and of themselves? Not, do they create potential for crime (we have already concluded that government cannot prevent crime), but, are they crimes in and of themselves. Does this make sense?

With joy and peace in Christ,Jay Lauser

_________________I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master. May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.

Do you think that we should change the purpose of this thread (or make a new thread) about the rules and regulations about Immigration?

In Christ,Peter G.

Actually, I think that that subject is sufficiently within this thread's topic:

Is it within the civil magistrate's jurisdiction to restrict immigration?

Does immigration harm the economy in any way?

What are your thoughts on immigration in general?

If it is within the government to restrict immigration, what are some ways to do so?

I did make one edit though, that I forgot to make earlier: I removed the word 'illegal' from the last point, as it is obvious that illegal immigration needs to be enforced. The question, however, is can immigration be illegal. Make sense?

With joy and peace in Christ,Jay Lauser

_________________I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master. May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.

Number of posts : 209Age : 25Location : Where ever a debate is, I'm in the midstRegistration date : 09/01/2009

Subject: Re: Illegal Immigration Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:48 am

Jay,

Okay, yeah, that does make sense.

So, does anyone have any opinions on what laws or rules should be made regarding immigration? How about what really makes Illegal Immigration wrong? Why does America have their laws that they have already?

Just a quick word on semantic clarification: immigration is only illegal if it is done in a way not prescribed by the government. This is rather obvious, but it bears mentioning. This is because it has important effects on immigration law. The question is not "Is illegal immigration bad" (because it is: it is illegal), but "what kinds of immigration, if any, should be illegal?" In other words, what ways of immigration are crimes in and of themselves? Not, do they create potential for crime (we have already concluded that government cannot prevent crime), but, are they crimes in and of themselves. Does this make sense?

With joy and peace in Christ,Jay Lauser

I believe that in our definition of crime we included (or should have included) that the threat of a crime is also a crime. (Ex. If someone points a gun and someone else and demands to have their money, we don't wait till that person shoots or runs off with the money before we try to arrest them. We can arrest them for the threat of harming another person's life, liberty, or property.) This is why I suggest giving criminal and health checks to all immigrants. This might fall under prevention, but I'm still not fully convinced that the government can never prevent certain things. Why would we overlook allowing potential criminals or contagious or fatal diseases into our nation all because we can't prevent it? Do we have to wait until our citizens' life, liberty, or property is actually threatened, harmed, or taken away before we take action? I submit that that is too late.

Sir Emeth Mimetes wrote:

The second thing that I want to do is ask a question: how do we know if an immigrant is a criminal? Do we assume that they are guilty until proven innocent? Or do we hold a trial at the borders? Or do we trust the government that they came from? And if we do, how do we know that they were just in their dealings? There are thousands of non-criminals branded as criminals even in the USA.

Good point. I think that the government is smart enough to figure this out. We would basically require a quick medical inspection given at the border with an additional optional health record from their nation. (Like a medical report.) A similar criminal report would be required from the nation's records. If the nation can't be trusted, a hearing may be required. The immigrant would be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Also, I suggest that the immigrant know and understand the written and spoken language of the nation sufficiently to interact and get around safely before they are admitted. (I can give you my beef on this one if you want, but I'll wait for right now.) The criminal and language restrictions may be modified in cases of refugees.

I have actually had my study relatively done for several days now, and I apologize for not getting it posted sooner. I was very busy (and still am). So here we go with my studies on immigration and citizenship.

Premise 1: Israel's principles of government as outlined in the Bible contain everything necessary to the forming of a Biblical government in the New Testament.

Premise 2: Israel's principles of government as outlined in the Bible also contain things that must be excluded from the forming of a Biblical government in the New Testament.

Conclusion: If Israel has no laws restricting the free entry of foreigners into its borders, then we cannot in good conscience put such laws into a New Testament government. This applies as well to the absence of laws regarding restrictions on the activities of immigrants.

In this report I am going to use the words Stranger, Foreigner, Pilgrim, Sojourner, and Immigrant almost interchangeably. There are fine variants of meaning between them, but they are the words that the Bible uses (excluding the last one). I will be explaining the differences between them as I go.

In my research I have read every single occurrence of every single Hebrew and Greek word in the Bible that was translated as stranger, foreigner, pilgrim, sojourner, alien, citizen, or fellowcitizen. I categorized them by definition and listed all passages representative of their uses. I therefore believe that I have a reasonable grasp of what the Bible has to say on immigration and citizenship. If you see anything wrong with my logic or hermeneutics, however, please notify me.

'Stranger' is the most common and generic word, that the Bible uses to describe those who are not originally from the nation that they are in. So that is what I will most generally use as well.

The one thing in the Israelite law about strangers that is most conspicuous by its absence is any sort of law regarding exclusion of immigration of any sort. People were absolutely free to enter or leave at their pleasure, no matter who they were. Borders were not watched in that manner at all. And from my research, there is not even any sort of laws that make it so that people can be banished after they have entered. But more on that later.

There is no direct references to strangers owning land that I can recall in my research, although it is possible that I missed it. What I did not miss, however, was the many references to strangers habitually residing in the land. There are actually several Hebrew words dedicated to those people in particular, and are translated as either sojourner or as stranger.

There were 153,600 strangers living in the land of Israel in Solomon's time (2 Chron. 2:17). It is hard for all those people to reside there habitually with their families if they are not permitted to have jobs or own stock or land.

Leviticus 25:47-49 And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother [that dwelleth] by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger [or] sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger's family: 48 After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: 49 Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or [any] that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself.

This passage does not refer to a stranger owning land, but talks about a stranger owning the service of an Israelite. It also refers to stranger (also called sojourner here for a reason) as waxing rich. The two words 'sojourner' and 'stranger' here have a sense of residence to them in their definitions and usage. Which makes sense, because how could some one wax rich in one spot if he doesn't stay there? This waxing rich also requires that he either own land from which he gets rent, or employs stock in a way that brings him profit, or he works for someone else for which he gets wages. All of these are alike means of income, and there are no laws refusing strangers from any one of them. Besides, he is employing the Israelite, so that implies that he can employ people.

Strangers are allowed to do things that Israelites cannot, and they are denied things that Israelites were permitted to do. Israelites were allowed to eat the holy things, and to go near the tabernacle (Ezekiel 44:9). The strangers were not. Strangers were allowed to eat some things that the Israelites were not, such as things that died of themselves. Mostly, however, the law was binding equally to all.

Leviticus 24:22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 18:26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:

Constantly throughout the Bible, strangers were commanded to be treated with respect, kindness, and deference.

Leviticus 19:33-34 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Exodus 22:21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Exodus 23:9 Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

People were commanded to be hospitable to strangers, even in the NT. And how can God command the populace to be hospitable to strangers, if the government is not supposed to be?

Hebrews 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

1 Timothy 5:10 Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.

Matthew 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

There is a lot more that I could talk about, but I want to keep this short.

Now, there was a possibility that when the law said 'cut off,' that it meant banishment of some sort. This could imply that the government could evict immigrants after they came in, even though they were not stopped at the border. I did some research, and discovered no consensus on the matter, so I did my own word study. I was able to discover the answer with a good degree of certainty. I will not include my whole study here, as it is slightly off-topic, but I will give a summary.

Whenever the Bible uses the phrase 'cut off' without any clarifying phrase (as in, 'cut off from...'), it always means slain. This has no exceptions as far as I know that are not very clearly defined in the context.

However, the Bible does use the phrases 'cut off from his people' and 'cut off from the congregation' several times ('...from the congregation' is used only twice, though). I made a list of all those occurrences, named the sin connected with it, and looked at the context of each for clues as to the meaning of the phrase. Sometimes it overlapped with execution sentences, many times it didn't. But when I looked at them all together, it became startlingly clear what the answer was.

1)God is the one who does the 'cutting off from the people and the congregation.' The government and the people have nothing to do with it except for avoiding the sin that leads to it.2)It has nothing to do with NT Biblical government. All the sins that lead to being cut off in this way are clearly vertical and/or ceremonial when taken as a group.3)It is simply being separated from the promises of God. It is not a physical punishment (although it might end up taking a physical manifestation), but a spiritual one.

There are a few other things that I could talk about, but I think this is long enough. If you have any questions, I will try my best to answer them. But in summary: in a Biblical government, immigration ought to be utterly free and open without any restrictions.

With joy and peace in Christ,Jay Lauser

_________________I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master. May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.

It's still hard for me to grapple with this in light of my research of current immigration laws, situations, etc. But, I can't argue with the Bible. I still have my questions from the citizen thread for you though:

Quote :

Here is my struggle with this. What do we do about international justice? OK, say a visiting tourist maimed someone. Of course we apprehend them, but what then? Our punishments may be different than another nation's. Do we ship them to their nation to be prosecuted? What about our citizen's in other nations? Say they break a ridiculous law in that nation that isn't a law in our nation. (Or maybe their punishment is significantly different than ours.) What would we want done for our citizen? Help?

This is why I get stumbled up here. If we allow non-citizens to own land or hold a job, what is the difference between a citizen and non-citizen? It would only be protection. This gets quite confusing in regards to laws, boundaries, international relations, wars and military, and privileges. Do we only protect those within the boarders of our nation? What happens when they go overseas and get held hostage or some killed? Do we go to war? Do we negotiate? For whom? Anyone that has lived in our nation, or only citizens? Do citizens have any privileges that non-citizens don't? I think that land ownership and a job ensures citizens (or at least provides citizens) with security in being able to live and provide for yourself within the boundaries of your country without having non-citizens enjoying these privileges possibly at citizens' expense. It also gives better national pride and pool for military and governmental positions. Forgive me if some of this is cryptic or confusing; my head is still kind of foggy. I may come back and edit it a bit.

I have studied out the answers to those questions, but I think that my report best aligns with the Citizen thread, oddly enough. When I get it finished, I will post it there. You might be surprised by my results, though. I know I was.

I understand your hesitation, having had the same difficulties myself before I came to understand the principles from the Bible. Here is something for you to think about, though, while you wait for my second report: open immigration is a huge problem only when the nation is a welfare state. If the laws of the nation are rigidly held to and enforced, and if the government limits itself to its purpose, then open immigration is the best thing that can happen for the nation.

All the arguments against open immigration that have any validity at all, from my research, only apply to welfare states like America, Ireland, and most of the world's nations.

Just something to tide you over.

With joy and peace in Christ,Jay Lauser

_________________I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master. May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.

I agree that for the most part, restrictions on immigration should be removed, and I would lean toward removing as many as possible. However, does the fact that Israel had no restrictions necessarily mean that a nation today should have none? Israel thousands of years ago was very different from America or even Israel today. Back then, it was possible for terrorists to enter the nation, but the most deadly weapon they had was a spear. Now, when an immigrant could be a member of Hamas or Al Quaida smuggling a nuclear bomb, wouldn't it make sense to have a quick background check and scan whatever goods are brought along?

Also, Jay said that open immigration is only a problem in welfare states. Economically speaking, I couldn't agree more. (As far as national security, I'm a little unsure, as you can see in the above paragraph.) However, if we are to reform immigration laws in America, would we have to wait to accomplish anything until welfare is abolished? Is it possible to discuss what the best possible immigration laws are in a less-than-ideal government?

What are your thoughts on this?

_________________For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6: 12)

Last edited by Dr. Hipopótamo on Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:44 pm; edited 1 time in total

I agree that for the most part, restrictions on immigration should be removed, and I would lean toward removing as many as possible. However, does the fact that Israel had no restrictions necessarily mean that a nation today should have none? Israel thousands of years ago was very different from America or even Israel today. Back then, it was possible for terrorists to enter the nation, but the most deadly weapon they had was a spear. Now, when an immigrant could be a member of Hamas of Al Quaida smuggling a nuclear bomb, wouldn't it make sense to have a quick background check and scan whatever goods are brought along?

You're point about ancient Israel vs. modern nations lies on the hermeneutical approach you take to the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch is largely a descriptive passage rather than a prescriptive passage. This means that we must find the underlying principles which apply to all nations at all times rather than strictly reenforcing the specific laws and practices found in these books. So, to answer your question, no, it does not necessarily mean that a nation today should have none, but it is a strong starting point for such an argument.

I personally haven't had time to check Jay's work, but, usually, he's very accurate with his Bible studies, hermeneutics, and word studies. As you suggest in your example, I would lean towards requiring a quick criminal and health background check for immigrants, but we must determine 1) if that is Biblical (or at least not contrary to Scripture) and 2) necessary to protect peoples' life, liberty, and property. If you look at my post above, (not my last post about grappling, but the one above that starting with the line: I believe that in our definition of crime,) I sight arguments for these and also included a language qualification. But, it all comes down to, is this in line with the principles laid out in Scripture, against these principles, or neither supported nor prohibited by these principles. I submit that if they are not directly contrary to these principles, then we must look at the example of history (history repeats itself) and see which is the best, most logical option to protect peoples' life, liberty, and property.

Dr. Hipopótamo wrote:

Also, Jay said that open immigration is only a problem in welfare states. Economically speaking, I couldn't agree more. (As far as national security, I'm a little unsure, as you can see in the above paragraph.) However, if we are to reform immigration laws in America, would we have to wait to accomplish anything until welfare is abolished? Is it possible to discuss what the best possible immigration laws are in a less-than-ideal government?

From my experience in debate on the topic of illegal immigration, I would say that it is very possible to reform immigration laws in America, without needing to abolish or even reform welfare.

Number of posts : 209Age : 25Location : Where ever a debate is, I'm in the midstRegistration date : 09/01/2009

Subject: Re: Illegal Immigration Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:31 am

Wait a minute. Caleb what you just said contradicted Jay. (Unless I misread.) Could we at least hear your reasoning behind why we wouldn't need to reform or abolish Welfare and yet still have open immigration? (that's what you ment by reform correct?) Because the way that I see it is that open immigration plus Welfare will kill our economy because then we will be wasting hugh amounts of tax payers money that could be focused towards other goals that are more noteworthy. Does that make sense or did I go wrong somewhere?

Wait a minute. Caleb what you just said contradicted Jay. (Unless I misread.) Could we at least hear your reasoning behind why we wouldn't need to reform or abolish Welfare and yet still have open immigration? (that's what you ment by reform correct?) Because the way that I see it is that open immigration plus Welfare will kill our economy because then we will be wasting hugh amounts of tax payers money that could be focused towards other goals that are more noteworthy. Does that make sense or did I go wrong somewhere?

In Christ,Peter G.

I'm sorry I was unclear on this. First of all, I wan't to say that I'm totally against Welfare. I don't think that we as a nation should have it. I'm not at all saying that a Biblical nation should have Welfare either. I was saying that I believe the American immigration process can be reformed without changing Welfare. I believe that Welfare hurts our nation more than it helps it, and that it should be abolished. However, I believe that our current immigration practices also hurt our nation. I think that there is a way to effectively reform immigration without touching Welfare. Of course, since we still have welfare, some parts of immigration may need to be different than an ideal system would allow for, but it is still possible to reform it. I won't go into how it could be reformed since that is off topic. We're not here to discuss American immigration, but rather biblical immigration. If you need more clarification, I can pm with you.

My main point is asking this: OK, so the Bible doesn't give any restrictions on immigration as seen in a descriptive passage. Does that mean that the government would be functioning outside its jurisdiction if it enforced certain measures and rules for immigrants? Is implementing a criminal background check, health exam, and language comprehension test outside of the government's jurisdiction, against biblical immigration principles or does it function within the role of the government by ensuring that peoples' life, liberty, and property are protected and safe from threat.

There are three things that I am going to try to address in this post, so please bear with me to the end. I know I can be rather long-winded...

It seems that the thing of main importance in this discussion is the validity of my opening premises and their conclusion. I will quote them below:

I wrote:

Premise 1: Israel's principles of government as outlined in the Bible contain everything necessary to the forming of a Biblical government in the New Testament.

Premise 2: Israel's principles of government as outlined in the Bible also contain things that must be excluded from the forming of a Biblical government in the New Testament.

Conclusion: If Israel has no laws restricting the free entry of foreigners into its borders, then we cannot in good conscience put such laws into a New Testament government. This applies as well to the absence of laws regarding restrictions on the activities of immigrants.

If this is logical and true, then we can't really debate much further, as I have already demonstrated the lack of laws in the OT that restricted immigration into Israel. So I will first defend this opening premise, and then I will answer some of the objections that have been brought up.

The hermeneutic principle that I and Caleb have developed and defended in other parts of this forum applies here, but in a slightly different way. We cannot merely say that the OT law is 'descriptive and not prescriptive' in this situation. Why? Because we are talking about a lack of laws, rather than a presence of laws. Let me explain.

In other parts of this forum we have been discussing laws that were in OT Israel, but which we believe should not[i] be in a NT Biblical government. Thus, we analyze the OT law to see whether those laws are prescriptive or descriptive. This is valid.

Here, we are discussing laws that [i]are conspicuous by their absence in OT Israel. We are trying to discern whether we should add them to governments in the NT. So the difference is that here we are deciding whether we should add laws, whereas before we were deciding whether we should subtract laws. There is a huge difference.

So, we know that there were laws in OT Israel that we cannot or should not enforce in a NT Biblical government. So there are in a sense too many laws in the Mosaic law for us to use. But is there enough? Are there laws that are absent from it that need to be added now? I trow not.

Why? Because God made it perfect and complete. He had extra purposes for the nation of Israel, true, but He also had firmly in place all those same purposes for that nation as He has for every other nation. God instituted government soon after the flood, and that institution still holds validity today. Therefore, Israel contains everything necessary for a NT Biblical government, with some extra. We are to extract that kernel of applicability, not add to it.

Therefore, since there are no laws restricting immigration in OT Israel, we cannot include them in a NT Biblical government.

Now, what about the claim that, because of advances in technology, some laws were not necessary in Israel, but they are today? What is being said is that some immigration laws are biblically justifiable and applicable, but they were not implemented in Israel because they were not needed because their technology was so low. If this is a misunderstanding of the objection, please correct me.

First off, I always get leery when people start trying to say that advances in technology, knowledge, or experience can change what God dictates in His Word. His Truths ought to apply to all cultures, at all times, and in all technologies, or else they are are not Truth.

But what about the question? Is there validity to it? I believe that there is not, and I will go about proving this in two or three ways (in addition to the one already demonstrated above).

First, no amount of legislation and border control can ensure even the slightest protection from invasion and attack by high-technology weaponry. It is impossible to give any sort of guarantee that nuclear weapons have not been smuggled in. When you do some research about smuggling you will realize the impracticality of the attempt. For them to make any relative suppression or discouragement of the possibility they have to invade the privacy and liberty of thousands (or millions, depending on the population of the nation and the rate of immigration) of innocent people to an extreme degree.

There are two main reasons why governments do try (from my understanding of the matter, of course): 1) to give the impression that they are doing something, and 2) to gain control and expand their powers. That is how government grows: by crises. They hype up the threat of nuclear invasion and clamp down with regulations that give them far reaching powers that are well outside of the scope of government.

Something that ties into this is expense. Border control is extremely expensive, especially the kind that focuses on prohibiting entry of nuclear weapons and etc. This raises a massive need for extra revenue on the part of the government, which increases the tax burden of the people. It becomes, in effect, the government forcing the people at gunpoint to pay for the privilege to have their privacy and liberty invaded, with no benefits.

Second, there was indeed a very similar danger to nuclear attack in OT Israel, because of the laws of God: idolatry. Over and over again, strangers would infiltrate the nation and subvert the people to commit sacrilege (or just commit sacrilege themselves). This always brought God's wrath upon the nation, resulting in the deaths of thousands (see Numbers 25 for an example). The devastation caused by this sort of spiritual attack was as devastating as a nuclear bomb or terrorism, and it might have been able to be lessened or stopped by making each person coming in take a background check and a doctrinal shibboleth. Or at least, they would have had more success than doing searches for nuclear bombs has. But they didn't, and there wasn't. God did not institute that. What He did was punish and deal with the events after the fact. Of course, people died, but that happens. Government cannot stop that, and it is dangerous for it to try. Government is there to punish, not prevent.

Third, the first line of defense of any Biblical nation ought to be, and must be, God. He has promised to defend and protect those nations that are righteously dedicated to Him. This is the job of the people and of the church, primarily, not the government's, although it also has a responsibility. If we have a nation dedicated to God, seeking to obey Him in everything (including government), and relying and trusting in Him, then He will defend it. He can prevent nuclear attacks, and He is much more efficient at it than any amount of border control.

That is my thoughts on the matter. Do they make sense?

With joy and peace in Christ,Jay Lauser

_________________I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master. May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.

Good post Jay. I'll have to think over it a while before I decide to agree or disagree. My initial questions are these:

1. Isn't part of the government's role the job of protecting peoples' life, liberty, and property? They certainly do this by punishing those who violate others' life, liberty, and property, but in our definition of crime, they can also punish or stop those who threaten these areas. (They don't have to wait until a man shoots someone before they apprehend him. His threatening someone with a gun is enough to allow the government to step in.) I guess you would agree to all of this but reply that restrictive immigration is dealing with potential threat, not imminent threat. If this is true, you might have a case.

2. You addressed the restriction on nuclear weapons, but what about criminal background or health checks? (Or did I miss where you addressed these?)

Good post Jay. I'll have to think over it a while before I decide to agree or disagree. My initial questions are these:

1. Isn't part of the government's role the job of protecting peoples' life, liberty, and property? They certainly do this by punishing those who violate others' life, liberty, and property, but in our definition of crime, they can also punish or stop those who threaten these areas. (They don't have to wait until a man shoots someone before they apprehend him. His threatening someone with a gun is enough to allow the government to step in.) I guess you would agree to all of this but reply that restrictive immigration is dealing with potential threat, not imminent threat. If this is true, you might have a case.

2. You addressed the restriction on nuclear weapons, but what about criminal background or health checks? (Or did I miss where you addressed these?)

To God be the glory,-Caleb

My response so far:

1) If you can demonstrate how walking into a nation is directly endangering anyone's life, liberty, or property, or is breaking a contract, and if you can demonstrate that God agrees with you, then you might have a case. As it is, I don't see you having a case anytime soon... If entering a nation is a crime, then it would have been punished in Israel, and it wasn't.

Another thought (I was reminded by my little sister. ): immigration control is like gun control. When you outlaw immigration, only outlaws will get in. Also, giving someone a gun is a potential threat: he might point it at someone wrongly. But it is not a real, current threat, and you should not do anything about it. Driving a car is a potential threat!!

2) Well, the same Biblical principle applies to all three situations. But... just to humor the question (and since it is a legitimate concern), I will try to answer them.

First, what is meant by a criminal background check? This needs to be clarified, because there are many different kinds. There was only one kind mentioned in the Bible (except for the one that God does for entrance into heaven... ): you had to say 'shibboleth.' But that was not related to immigration or anything else related to our current topic of discussion.

Most criminal background checks (the ones that would do any good) are very invasive of privacy. In any case, no amount of background checks will stop a criminal from entering your nation, and they will only hamper and annoy innocent people. Besides, who is defining what a criminal is?

Second, health checks. I have some very unorthodox views on health (such as, most diseases are curable without the 'aid' of any sort of medical doctor). But, an epidemic of any sort is less dangerous than a nuclear attack, which I already dealt with. And, it is even harder to do a sufficient health check to prevent terrible diseases from entering than it is to prevent nuclear weapons from entering! Most people are carriers of terrible diseases because they are immune to them, and they are undetectable. Then when they go into a region where the disease had not been, it spreads like fire. See the progress of the black plague for an illustrious example: it went from the Asian continent to Europe, then to America with the settlers, then to Central and South America.

I hope that answers your questions. Did I make sense?

With joy and peace in Christ,Jay Lauser

_________________I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master. May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.

I think you won me over. (Not fully sure though.) You have some pretty solid arguments going. Let me think about it.

So, are you basically saying that there should be no restrictions on immigration of any kind and that everyone is free to come in and go out as long as he is not threatening or taking someone's life, liberty, or property or breaking a contract?

I think you won me over. (Not fully sure though.) You have some pretty solid arguments going. Let me think about it.

So, are you basically saying that there should be no restrictions on immigration of any kind and that everyone is free to come in and go out as long as he is not threatening or taking someone's life, liberty, or property or breaking a contract?

-Caleb

Exactly.

_________________I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master. May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.

So, does this mean that we have reached a conclusion guys? Would it be something along the lines of:

There are no rules or regulations regarding immigration as long as the immigrants do not violate another citizen's life, liberty, property, or contracts.

Does everyone agree with this definition? Or does someone have a better conclusion?

In Christ,Peter G.

How about this one:

Government cannot make any regulations or restrictions regarding immigration or border patrol as it does not fit in the purpose of government.

Make sense?

_________________I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master. May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.